The expression "relates to" in Section 204(2)(c) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act should be interpreted broadly, and it is not necessary for the advertiser to have a trade license or ownership rights over the premises where the advertisement is displayed in order to claim the exemption.

JUDGMENT :- These two matters have been assigned to me by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice on the difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges of this Court (Banerjee, J. and Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, J.) while deciding two mandamus-appeals preferred against a common order dated 31st October, 2006 passed by Dilip Kumar Seth, J. while hearing two writ-application analogously, one filed by the Calcutta Soft-Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called Coca-Cola) and the other, by the Pepsico India Holding Limited (henceforth described as Pepsi) by which His Lordship dismissed both the writ-applications.

2. The Coca-Cola, one of the appellants before us, filed a writ-application before the learned single Judge being W.P. No. 1914 of 2000 thereby praying for a declaration that no advertisement-tax is payable in respect of any board or glow-sign erected by it at the request of its dealers, distributors or retailers on a place from which those persons carry on business of selling its products. The appellant further prayed for mandamus directing the respondent not to demand or realise any advertisement-tax in respect of any board or glow-sign erected by the appellant at the request of its dealers, distributors or retailers on the land or the building from which those retailers, distributors or dealers sell the products of the appellant.

3. The cause of action for filing of such writ-application was a letter dated 6th September, 1999 issued by the advertisement department of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Licence Department, by which the licence-officer brought to the notice of the appellant that it had displayed a good number of advertisements at different shops, restaurants, cinema-halls etc. displaying various items of its products, such as, Coca-Cola, Thumbs Up, Fanta etc. for which it was liable to pay advertisement-tax in terms of Section 204(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By the said letter, the Municipal Authority directed the appellant to furnish in details the measurement, location and display of all such advertisements within seven days, failing which, it threatened appropriate legal action against the appellant in terms of the Act.

4. The appellant replied the said letter contending that it was not liable to pay any advertisement-tax in terms of Section 204 of the Act for giving advertisement on the building or land of their dealers, retailers or distributors where the various items manufactured by the appellant were being sold.

5. In answer to such letter given by the appellant, the Municipal Authority pointed out that in terms of Section 204(1) of the Act, it was entitled to realise the advertisement-tax from the appellant and in support of such contention, a decision of the Supreme Court published in a newspaper, viz. "Business standard" dated 19th October, 1995 was referred to.

6. In the writ application filed by the appellant, it maintained its stance taken in its letter written to the Municipal Authority and contended that it came within the exception indicated in Section 204(2)(c) of the Act.

7. The said writ application was opposed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation thereby contending that the appellant was not entitled to get the benefit of exceptions provided in Section 204(2) of the Act as in the places where the advertisements were given by the appellant, not only the items manufactured by the appellants were being sold but also different items manufactured by other persons were available for sale. It was further contended that the advertisement were exhibited at the places which were not the business-place of the appellant.

8. The points involved inn the other writ-application filed by the Pepsi were similar to the ones involved in the other application and for that reason both the applications were heard together and I refrain from repeating the case made out by the Pepsi in the other application as those are substantially similar.

9. The learned single Judge accepted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document